Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Trial transcript: Day 8 (October 12), AM Session, Part 1

THE COURT: Be seated, please. All right, good
morning to all, and welcome back for our next day of trial. We
have, we're mid-examination I guess, and we can have our witness
back on the stand, and I believe we're on cross, is that
correct?

Q. Pat Gillen, we met at your deposition. I'm
going to ask you a few questions today about the trial testimony
you gave last week. Before I do that, I'd just like to ask you
have you consulted with anyone about your testimony last week
in-between being released from trial?

Q. Oh, good. I thank all of you for respecting
that integrity of the process. Mrs. Spahr, I'd like to start my
questioning of you with just a few questions about the 2003 year.
It's correct, is it not, that during that year the science
department learned that the purchase of the science text would be
delayed due to fiscal considerations?

Q. We have had some discussion about a memo from
Dr. Peterman that was created and it recounted a conversation
that you and Dr. Peterman had, and I just want to make sure I
have the details of that straight in the record. When you had
that discussion with Dr. Peterman, it was about instruction in
biology class?

Q. Thank you for correcting my imprecise sentence.
All right. Now, you discussed with Dr. Peterman some of the
concerns you had about this notion of perhaps working creationism
into the biology curriculum, correct?

Q. And one of those concerns was just a practical
consideration of time constraints, the teachers were already
pressed for time trying to present the state standard material,
and how would another subject be worked in, correct?

Q. Now, at the board meetings in 2004, I'm taking
you forward to -- well, actually let's look at 2003. Do you
recall Barrie Callahan making mention of the notion that the
students in biology didn't have books?

Q. And although she expressed that concern, I know
it wasn't technically accurate that they didn't have books,
correct?

A. They did not have books for one year, and there
was a good reason for that, and the curriculum was basically
realigned to meet the state standards, and we had in one year all
of 9th grade and 10th grade taking biology, four hundred students
with two hundred books.

Q. Right. So in a sense what she was getting at
and what you're saying is that no text was assigned to each
student?

Q. But you do recall as you say Jen Miller
explaining the way she presented evolutionary theory in
class?

A. Very clearly. She tried to make the
differentiation between origin of life and origin of species. She
emphasized that when evolution is taught in the biology
classroom, it is taught as change over time.

Q. Right, and she used as an example the bird, the
finches, Darwin's finch, and the change of one finch to another,
correct?

Q. And as the head of the science department you
had some concern that if the science department missed its turn
in 2003, it might have to go to the next seven years of the cycle
before to get new books?

Q. When we look now at 2004, I just want to get a
sense again for this text purchase and how it unfolded, we're
moving quickly, and I hope to do that, if I'm correct you recall
a meeting with the board curriculum committee that occurred in
the spring of 2004 prior to the June meetings, correct?

A. Members of the faculty, that's true, and Mr.
Baksa I believe was present as well.

Q. Thank you, yes, the administration. And you
recall Mrs. Harkins asking the teachers, "Do you realize that
there's about five words difference between the old text and the
one you're recommending for purchase," correct?

Q. During that meeting, and during that meeting if
I'm not mistaken that's the meeting where Mr. Buckingham
expressed his conviction that teachers were addressing the
origins of life, correct?

A. He had asked us more than once if we teach man
comes from a monkey. In response to that in utter frustration I
looked at Mr. Buckingham and I said, "If you say man and monkey
one more time in the same sentence, I'm going to scream." He did
not do that, and I didn't have to.

Q. And there was this discussion that he said
well, what about this, the mural came up again, correct?

A. The mural came up again because I finally said
to him, "Does this go back to the mural that appeared in Room
217?" He did not acknowledge that question. I then asked him,
"Could you please explain where you obtained the picture of the
mural that you had at a board meeting earlier in the spring that
someone had seen and brought to my attention?"

A. I never had a copy of the text. I just looked
at the document he had handed me.

Q. And you came away from that meeting with the
assurance that the text recommended by the department, which at
that time was the 2002 edition of Miller and Levine, would be
purchased, correct?

A. The last thing I said to Mr. Buckingham before
we departed, because we were now all getting ready to leave for
the summer, "Do I have your assurance that we will have the 2002
biology text in the hands of our teachers when fall begins?" He
looked at me and said yes, and I took him at his word.

Q. Yes. And if we go into the, look at the school
board meetings that are taking place in June, there was still
mention of this notion that the kids don't have texts,
correct?

Q. But for the reasons we've discussed that wasn't
really accurate. It's more accurate to say the texts weren't
assigned to each student?

A. I believe at the June 14th board meeting I made
that statement during public comment to clarify that issue so
that the public did not think we were asking for new books when
in fact we didn't use the old ones which were there.

Q. Right. Now, you didn't attend the first board
meeting in June of 2004?

Q. Forgive me for cutting you off. And that's
because you anticipated that the texts would be purchased,
approved at that board meeting as per the assurance of Mr.
Buckingham --

A. The chemistry textbooks and the family and
consumer science textbooks were on the agenda for adoption. I
went in case there happened to be any discussion as to why this
particular chem book was being recommended over some other
publisher.

Q. But subsequently the department received a more
recent edition, the 2004 edition, correct?

A. I came in to school sometime either late in
June or the beginning of July, and upon the desk was a box from
Prentice Hall. I had the good fortune of opening it because I
thought it might be teachers editions, which the staff would need
over the summer in their preparations, only to find the 2004
edition of Miller and Levine.

Q. And you knew that the board was going to have
questions if you were recommending purchase of a 2002, and there
was a 2004 edition?

A. And rightly so, because at that point the book
would already be probably somewhere between two and four years
old, and if the new edition is there it would sometimes appear it
would be a waste of money to buy an older edition.

Q. And I believe you said that after receiving
that, you had a get-together with Mike Baksa and Jen Miller and
you went over the 2002-2004 text, correct?

A. I immediately called Mr. Baksa to inform him
that the 2004 edition was there and thought that this could now
be a new issue in all of the work that it took to get the 2002
edition approved.

Q. And you reviewed those two texts in light of
the concerns that Mr. Buckingham had raised, correct?

Q. Now, if we end there at that August 2004 board
curriculum meeting, there was really no discussion about this
issue again until October, which was the start of the school year
and everyone was busy, correct?

Q. Okay. Good enough. Now, the next thing I'd like
to ask you a few questions about is the October 18th board
meeting, and what I'd like to do is, I've put these up in the
hope that they would be of some use to you. I'm going to ask you
about the various versions of the curriculum change that were at
issue on that evening, okay?

Q. All right. What I want to just get into the
record for my perspective is the documents that were at issue
here as we approached this meeting, and if you look at 60, Mrs.
Spahr, you'll see that that's billed as the board curriculum
committee's recommended changes, correct?

Q. And it was an effort to allay the teachers'
concerns about including intelligent design?

A. We were never told what his motivation was
behind it. We were just told he contributed it.

Q. Let me ask you this. You understood that that
note would mean that intelligent design wasn't taught?

A. We looked at this and thought that the origins
of life is not taught, which it is not. And if origins of life
are not taught, then there would be no reason for intelligent
design, and furthermore we felt no reason for the reference of Of
Pandas and People.

Q. And that's because you're looking right at the
subtitle of the text and it says that it deals with the central
question of biological origins, correct?

Q. And you felt that there was a need to make that
plain in public because the you felt at least the newspaper
coverage made it look like the science teachers were on board
with that aspect of the curriculum change, correct?

A. There were two factions in the community at the
time. Many people thought that we, the science department, agreed
with what the board was doing, which we did not. And the other
half believed that if we did not support it, then we had to be
atheists. That offended my science department because two members
of the science department are sons and daughters of
ministers.

Q. And your basis for that is essentially, you
know, rumor or what you were hearing sort of second or thirdhand,
correct?

A. Well, in some instances it was a little more
direct than that. If we were out in a drugstore or the food store
people, would come up and make comments.

Q. Well, I mean you didn't hear anything firsthand
accusing you of being an atheist?

Q. And you made this statement in public because
you had the sense that the newspaper coverage was creating
impression that the science faculty was supporting the curriculum
change?

A. There had been some coverage in the newspaper,
not necessarily by reporters, that gave the idea that we had been
involved in the implementation of certain statements, and that
was not necessarily true.

Q. When you made your statement you also pointed
out that the teachers had tried to compromise with the board
curriculum committee?

Q. There was a heated discussion after Mr.
Buckingham responded to your comments, correct?

A. When I finished my statement Mr. Buckingham
looked at me and wanted to know where I had received my law
degree. There was a gasp that went through the audience, I looked
at him, I remembered what a former principal had told me, and I
did not dignify it with a comment, and sat down.

Q. And when that comment was made there was a
negative reaction on the part of the crowd, and in fact Lonnie
Langione got up and -- well, you described in your deposition I
believe practically jumped out of his chair and took issue?

Q. When you say it can't be proven, it's with
reference to your understanding of the notion of testability?

A. In science we have a very defined pattern of
behavior to test anything. We observe and gather data, we propose
a question, we formulate a hypothesis, we go into the laboratory
to test the hypothesis and draw a conclusion. After many people
have done the same experiment we are now prepared to propose a
theory.

A. To my knowledge, yes, although I am not a first
line supervisor. So I do not have the opportunity to go into the
classroom to see exactly what they are teaching. I have a full
teaching load of my own.

Q. Okay. I've got one last question I want to ask
you, Mrs. Spahr, and it's just for the purpose of putting things
in context and being fair. As I've told you, I understand that
you're well respected in the community and you have taught there
for forty years. But do you recall in your statement that you
accused Mr. Buckingham of operating from a personal agenda?

MR. GILLEN: Well, Your Honor, I mean she has
testified, and I have tremendous respect for this witness, who
I've deposed, that she felt deeply insulted and so on. What I'm
-- and I understand that, but what I'm trying to get across for
the court so you can see the context of the meeting is that prior
to that unedifying comment, you know, Mr. Buckingham had also
been accused of operating from a personal agenda, not with the
best interests of the students at heart and --

THE COURT: Well, if Mr. Buckingham testifies and
if he says that he was and he was insulted, and if that prompted
comments by him, then I think that's relevant. Her impression as
to whether or not he was insulted I'm not sure is in any way
relevant to the proceedings, so I'll sustain the objection.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Gillen. No redirect?
Ma'am, you may step down. That completes your testimony. We have
some exhibits that we must take up, starting with the direct
examination last week. We have the notes by the witness, that is
P-90, and we have the catalog, which is P-144. Are you moving for
the admission of both of those exhibits?

MR. GILLEN: It's hearsay. It doesn't really have
any bearing on -- she's testified that showed up in a box when
the book was ordered. It's not a business record or anything of
that nature. It was never passed on to the administration. They
didn't know it existed until she produced it. So it's hearsay and
not relevant.

MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, she received the catalog
with the book. She received them as the designated employee of
the defendant school district, who was the person who received
the books. She unpacked it. There's no challenge to the
authenticity of the document, and it is the publishers' or
distributors' description of the nature of the text that's highly
relevant to this case, so it seems to me that it comes in.

THE COURT: Well, she's the designated recipient.
She is an agent of the school district. You know, I didn't hear
an authenticity challenge. I don't think there is one. Her
testimony was that it was in the box when she opened it. I'm
inclined to let it in, unless you have another argument you want
to make, Mr. Gillen.

MR. GILLEN: Well, I've made my argument. I don't
think it's a business record. It's something that she basically
received in the mail. I mean, it's not a business record in the
sense that it's not her job to keep the catalog, there's no
testimony to that effect, and she didn't pass it on to the
administration, so they didn't even know it existed.

MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, on the second issue,
there was no reason for her to pass it on to the administration
because she received it as an employee of the district and kept
it as part of her files as the head of the science department,
which was her testimony.

THE COURT: Yes. I don't see her failure to pass it
on to the administration as being necessarily fatal.

MR. GILLEN: I guess what I'm saying, Your Honor,
is if she would have received the catalog any number of ways, her
mailings or mailings she received, solicitations from any number
of sources.

THE COURT: Well, you could cross her on how she
received it. I mean, then you're expanding your objection to say
conceivably she got it another way than in the box that was sent,
but I didn't hear that.

MR. GILLEN: No, you did not. I have no reason to
believe it didn't show up in the box with the book.

THE COURT: So the box was designated, to the
extent she was the duly appointed agent to receive it, it was
within it. The purpose of the exhibit is to show that within the
box there was a brochure from the publisher that had other books
and the books were under certain, under a certain designation.
I'll allow it for that purpose, the purpose offered by the
plaintiffs, and nothing more. So we'll overrule your objection in
that regard and we'll admit P-144. P-90 has been withdrawn, so
there's no ruling on that.

Now, on cross we have D-60, D-61. D-60 is the memo
and change curriculum guide. D-61 is the memo and planned
curriculum guide, D-61 is, and D-68 is the memo and the second
draft. Now, some of those may have gone in under plaintiff's
designations I think.

THE COURT: So we don't need to dispose of those in
any way. They just had the plaintiff's exhibit numbers, and we'll
do those. I think that's everything. Tell me, gentlemen, if I'm
wrong, if I've missed everything.

A. There was an opening at McGill in science
education, and so I decided to take that appointment. Harvard
kept me on for two more years in the philosophy of education
research center, and then after that they appointed me in the
science education department at Harvard, and I've held that
appointment ever since.

Q. And have you developed a subspecialty within
science education of how to teach evolution?

A. Yes. My real focus and interest is in evolution
education, and even within that my particular focus is concerning
problems teachers have with students bringing in problems with
their religion conflicting with what they perceive to be problems
with evolution and how students themselves feel about it and how
teachers feel about it and the conflicts they have.

Q. And have your, has your research and other
activities involved looking at students' problems or difficulties
students have in learning about evolution?

A. Yes. I've interviewed well over a thousand
students at various levels, asking them what the problems if any
they have concerning evolution with their religion or wherever
the interviews lead.

Q. And I notice on page 2 of your curriculum vitae
there's a long list of activities under something called funding.
Now, are these activities for which you receive either government
or private foundation grants to do research and activities?

A. Yes, but first I'd like to mention there's an
update on that also within the last, since this CV in the last
couple of months I received another grant, $175,000 from the
federal government of Canada the research Islamic views of
evolution concerning teaching students and teachers. So but in
answer to your question, other than that update, yes, these are
from government and corporate, and they're all involving some
form of science education.

Q. Now, you're teaching at McGill in Canada and
you mentioned this foundation grant to do research in Canada. Is
there any difference between how science is taught in Canada and
how it's taught in the United States?

Q. Now, have you received grants from the National
Science Foundation to do research and activities?

A. I have not received grants directly from them.
I've researched and evaluated for the National Science Foundation
science education programs, large ones in the millions of dollars
that university professors run for science teachers.

Q. So these are National Science Foundation
sponsored research and activities?

Q. And I'm sorry, what kind of activities have you
done at the request of the National Science Foundation?

A. When the NSF, if you'll allow me to use the
acronym, when the NSF gives funds to university professors to do
research in science education or to run science education
programs for teachers, they generally would like to see those
millions of dollars that are going to those professors to be
evaluated, to see that the programs are good, to get some
feedback concerning that, and sometimes the evaluations are 40,
50, 60 pages long and they're sometimes quite extensive, and I'm
called in to do some of those. I've done a few, and some are
listed here.

A. I don't want to presuppose what the NSF is
thinking concerning that, but I think that's reasonable.

Q. Are there a couple of other notable activities
or research projects that you've undertaken here that you might
tell us about?

A. Well, I'm kind of fond of the Lucent
Technologies Foundation. It was a worldwide competition, and the
only grant that was awarded in Canada was mine, and it was about
$668,000. We worked with hundreds and hundreds of to be teachers
and in-service teachers both, people who are currently practicing
the art and science of teaching to develop science activities,
and so those were essentially put into a large book form and
apparently are being used by hundreds of schools presently.

A. How to teach a particular science concept,
whatever it would be, to figure out a new, entertaining,
interesting way, novel way of doing it hopefully.

Q. And you developed a number of these activities
to facilitate science education?

A. Yes. With a lot of help from a lot of other
people, but I was the principal investigator on the grant,
yes.

Q. On pages 3 through 5 of your CV, starting in
the middle of page 3, you have many listings under what are known
as refereed articles, and then there's a section, other
publications and scholarly writing. What are refereed
articles?

A. Refereed articles are where they're not
automatically published. They're reviewed in some way, and
criticism comes back for possibly, you know, we're not publishing
this, something like that.

Q. And other publications and scholarly writings
are, how would you describe those?

A. Those are ones that really couldn't be
considered refereed articles. So it's sort of a default
category.

Q. And are there -- we've heard from Professor
Miller about scientific associations, the National Academy of
Sciences, American Association of the Advancement of Science. Are
there science education associations as well?

A. The largest scientific association in the
United States is the National Association of Science Teachers,
NAST. There's over fifty thousand members. The largest biology
organization in the United States for teachers is NATB, National
Association of Biology Teachers.

Q. And what have you done to develop your
familiarity with creationism and intelligent design?

A. Well, I have read easily over fifty books on
creationism, hundreds of articles and pamphlets, products from
creationists, interviewed again over a thousand students about
and teachers about the problems, their problems, their perceived
problems with evolution and creation, tried to understand better
what they perceived as their problem.

Q. And you say that you've read creationist
articles and many books on creationism. Do you equate intelligent
design with creationism?

A. There's so many reasons, but I guess the
primary reason is that it involves breaking one of the ground
rules of science and methodological naturalism. It brings in
supernatural causation into science, which is against most
foundational ground rules.

Q. So can you explain to us why you're a co-author
on a science biology textbook?

A. My co-author has bachelors and masters in
biology and a Ph.D. in education also. Because what textbooks
really do is teach, that's basically what they're doing. And so
authors such as us of course consult scientists and get help from
hundreds literally on the discipline, hundreds of scientists
consulting various areas of content, critiquing it, sending back
comments and so forth to help us on the science part, but the
textbook itself is really an author's attempt to teach a
student.

A. Teaching evolution in Higher Education:
Methodological, Religious, and Non-religious Issues. This is a
book specifically about the conflict that instructors see
students bring into their courses concerning evolution, and it
also came out in 2005. It was a good year.

Q. And does it give advice to science professors
how to deal with students who have creationist beliefs?

A. Project Collaboration: One Large Experiment.
It's a book about the activities I mentioned earlier, the
compilation of the work of a hundred graduate students in
education, hundreds of teachers out in the field, and about fifty
some graduate students in science.

Q. Now, I want to focus a little bit more on the
fifth book listed there, and what is that book?

Q. And the first one is by a gentleman identified
as Stephen J. Gould, professor of zoology and geology at Harvard
University. Who is, or who was Stephen J. Gould?

A. The late Stephen J. Gould is considered by most
people to be one of the top evolution area theorists and popular
writers of evolution to live in the past century. He was a
professor at Harvard as stated there. He'd been president of the
AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and I
think he was, before his death he had been awarded close to
honorary doctorates.

Q. And what Professor Gould says about your book
is, "This book becomes a vital document in one of the most
important issues in our age," is that correct?

Q. Dr. Alters, you understand that the Dover
policy on intelligent design includes the reading by school
administrators of a four paragraph statement, and then there are
restrictions placed on what teachers can and cannot discuss in
class about that statement, is that your understanding?

A. Yes. And the policy also concerns other
aspects, I guess the mention of the, part of the policy within
the curriculum, the Dover curriculum.

Q. And do you have an opinion about whether the
policy promotes students' science education?

Q. We're going to take a little bit of time to
look at the basis for your opinions. Is teaching students about
evolution important?

A. Yes, it's extremely important. It's the
overarching theme, the underlying concept, it's the glue that
holds all of the life sciences together. It would be somewhat
like teaching a physics course without talking about gravity,
something like that. It's probably even more central to biology.
Most biology professors have indicated such.

Q. Now, certainly not every student in a high
school going is going to become a scientist, is that a fair
statement?

Q. Why is it important for students who don't
become scientists to learn about evolution?

A. Well, evolution involves so many aspects of
their life. Bacterial resistance, pesticides, evolution of
organisms for pesticide problems, environmental issues, in
general just their reading of environmental issues in newspapers
and magazines, voting on issues, thinking about getting involved
in such issues. Many of those involve evolution. There's many
more of course. It's interesting to know how the diversity of
life and why things look the way they do and are the way they
are, it's extraordinarily important, and most people like it also
for discussions. It's somewhat interesting, you know, how am I
related to those other organisms.

Q. Now, how would you define good pedagogy? First
of all let me ask you, what is pedagogy? What does that word
mean?

A. Well, I can speak for science education. Good
pedagogy is usually underpinned by an educational theory called
constructivism. It goes by some various other terms, but
basically it's constructivism, and it's that a child is just not
a vessel into which we pour knowledge. We just don't do that. The
child interacts with what they're hearing and constructs their
own knowledge of that. And so most, most areas of science
education underpin their activities and their learning and so
forth on constructivism. So that's kind of the central theme for
most of it.

A. Yes, it does, because again we just can't pour
knowledge into students. We have to find out what it is that they
have preconceptions about, or if it's not directly about the
subject being taught, it's something that they misunderstand
that's impeding them to understand what is being taught
currently. And so diagnosing those misconceptions is very
important in figuring out a treatment to be able to be used in
the classroom so the students can overcome those misconceptions
so that they can learn what needs to be learned.

Q. And does good pedagogy also mean that you don't
engender needless misconceptions?

A. Absolutely. There would hardly be anything
worse for a science teacher to do than engender needless
misconceptions.

Q. Let's talk a little bit about selecting course
content for a biology class. Are there sources that teachers,
administrators, and others can consult to decide on say a science
curriculum content?

A. Sure, many of them consult the National
Education Association, National Science Teachers Association,
NABT that I mentioned previously, National Association of Biology
Teachers, absolutely.

Q. And do those organizations rely on any others
in helping them formulate positions on appropriate science
curriculum content?

A. Sure they do, because they're generally made up
of science educators. So they often need help on the science
aspect, so then they look to the national and leading worldwide
science associations for help. The National Academy of Sciences,
the most prestigious science organization in the United States,
if not the world. AAAS, American Association for the Advancement
of Science, it's the largest general scientific society on the
planet. Their publication is read by a million people
subscription. They serve ten million individuals. Vast resources
for science education association.

Q. And do you know whether the science education
organizations, the National Science Teachers Association and the
National Association of Biology Teachers, have taken positions on
the teaching of evolution and intelligent design?

Q. Now, if a school board member wanted to learn,
or a school board member or anybody else wanted to learn what to
teach in science class, are there places they could go to
research this?

A. There's many places, but the educational
associations I previously mentioned, NST A and NABT, have
wonderful web sites and they publish books, pamphlets, they have
a vast amount of resources, they hold annual conferences,
regional conferences, yes.

Q. And do you know whether the scientific
associations also have web sites that are readily accessible to
the public?

Q. Let's come back to the national science
associations' positions, not science education associations, and
you testified that the science education associations are to some
extent derivative of, their positions are derivative of what the
science organizations do?

A. Well, it would be tough for a national or any
science education association to make statements about science
without checking with the scientific association.

Q. And I've asked you to highlight a passage.
Matt, if you could pull up, and this is from the page marked
"Conclusion" in the publication Science and Creationism. Could
you please read that passage into the record?

A. Yes. "Creationism, intelligent design, and
other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life
or of species are not science because they are not testable by
the methods of science. These claims subordinate, observe data to
statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief.
Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically
limited to the special publication of their advocate. These
publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light
of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This
contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always
remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification
in light of new knowledge."

Q. And do you know whether this reflects the
official position of the National Academy of Sciences?

Q. If you could highlight the first three or four
whereas clauses? Dr. Alters, if you could read for the record the
highlighted passages?

A. Okay. "Whereas, ID proponents claim that
contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the
origin of the diversity of living organism; whereas to date the
ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to
support their claim that ID undermines the currently
scientifically accepted theory of evolution; whereas the ID
movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its
claims, therefore be it resolved that the lack of scientific
warrant for so-called intelligent design theory makes it improper
to include as part of science education."

Q. So you're aware, and you're aware that they
have taken positions and said no, it should not be taught?

A. Every scientific association that I'm aware of,
and there are a lot of web sites listed in various places, such
as the National Center for Science Education, when they make a
statement concerning evolution or intelligent design, they always
say intelligent design should not be taught.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, this might be a good
time, or we could go another ten or fifteen minutes or --

THE COURT: No, why don't we take our morning break
at this time. I appreciate your suggestion, Mr. Walczak. We'll do
that, we'll break for twenty minutes, and we'll return and pick
up the direct examination of this witness. We'll be in
recess.